Queenswww.qcba.org Bar Bulletin Queens County Bar Association / 90-35 One Hundred Forty Eighth Street, Jamaica, NY 11435 / (718) 291-4500 Vol. 72 / No. 5 / Febuary 2009 Criminal Law: Cases CPLR BY: ILENE J. REICHMAN, ESQ. on the guilt of the accused. By contrast, The Court held that the fingerprint report in Rawlins was “testimonial” since it During the past year, the New York Court of Appeals was inherently accusatory and offered to prove an essential Update addressed a variety of issues in the area of criminal law and element of the crimes charged. The error in Rawlins was procedure. This article will review and highlight several nevertheless found to be harmless beyond a reasonable cases that may be of interest to the criminal practitioner. doubt. In People v. Michael Rawlins, 10 N.Y. 3d 136 and a com- In People v. Donnie Simmons, 10 N.Y. 3d 946 (decided panion case, People v. Dwain Meekins, 10 N.Y. 3d 136 July 1, 2008), the defendant sought dismissal of an indict- 2009 (decided February 19, 2008), the Court decided to resolve ment on the grounds that his right to testify before the grand an issue of first impression: whether DNA and latent fin- jury had been violated. Simmons was held on bail following BY DAVID H. ROSEN, ESQ. gerprint comparison reports are “testimonial” statements his arraignment in the criminal court on a misdemeanor within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. charge where he was represented by an attorney from the Arbitration 36 (2004). In Rawlins, the defendant’s latent fingerprints misdemeanor panel of the Assigned Counsel Plan. At his It is basic to the deter- were lifted from six burglarized commercial establishments next court appearance, the prosecutor notified him and his mination of arbitration and compared by several different detectives, one of whom attorney of his intent to present the case to a grand jury. issues that whether a con- did not testify at trial. In Meekins, a DNA report was pre- However, his attorney failed to appear for the scheduled tract to arbitrate has in fact pared by multiple technicians at a private laboratory that the grand jury appearance and Simmons was not produced for been made is a matter to NYPD had outsourced the task of testing crime scene sam- that proceeding. In support of the motion to dismiss filed by be determined by the ples. None of the technicians testified at trial. However, a his new attorney, Simmons argued that his first attorney had court. Where the parties supervisor at the laboratory testified that she had reviewed constructively abandoned him at a critical stage of the pros- have agreed to arbitration, David H. Rosen, Esq. the technicians’ results. In each case, the prosecution intro- ecution. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the and one party demands duced the reports prepared by the non-testifying witnesses failure of defense counsel to facilitate defendant’s testimo- arbitration of a dispute, the service of the demand as business records prepared and kept in the regular course ny before the grand jury did not amount to a denial of his triggers a short limitations period of twenty days, of business. On appeal, Rawlins and Meekins challenged the right to effective assistance of counsel since there was no during which the responding party must make admission of those reports as a violation of their Sixth showing that the outcome of the grand jury proceeding application to the court for a stay of arbitration or Amendment right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals would have been different if he had testified. be held to have waived any objection to the arbi- held that the DNA report in Meekins was not “testimonial” In People v. Jason Naradzay, N.Y.3d (decided tration based upon the demanding party’s lack of within the definition of Crawford because it shed no light __________________________________Continued On Page 12 compliance, or time limitations or even that the dispute is within the arbitration agreement. An exception to this strict rule applies where the par- ties 2 never in fact agreed to arbitrate. In such a New Amendments to Section 3420 case, the Court of Appeals has previously held in Matter of Matarasso that the twenty-day limita- tions period does not apply.3 of the Insurance Law Relating to Late Notice In Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v Haber, the Court of Appeals considered whether the 4 Matarasso rule applies so as to allow a late petition to stay arbi- to Insurers and Disclaimers of Coverage tration, where the contract has expired. The Court found the Matarasso rule to be inapplicable, thus BY MARTIN SCHULMAN, ESQ.* to an insurer, even where such delays were inno- disallowing the late petition to stay arbitration cent or the result of honest misunderstandings on and directing the parties to arbitrate. On January 17, 2009 a change in the Insurance the part of the insured often resulted in a disclaimer The contract involved the installation and Law took effect that substantially benefits both by the insurer and its refusal to either defend or maintenance of music and game machines in insured and injured parties. As of that date amend- indemnify under an insurance policy. petitioner’s bar. The contract contained a broad ments to Section 3420 of the Law mandate that an A concise statement of the Court’s position was arbitration clause, and was to last for five years, insurer may not disclaim coverage based on “late given in 2005 by Judge Smith in Argo Corp. v. with a five-year extension if certain payments notice” unless it suffers material prejudice as a Greater N.Y. Mutual Insurance Co., 4 NY3d 332. were made by the respondent vendor to petition- result of the delay. In conjunction with the change, He wrote: er. A payment was made, but petitioner claimed Sec. 3001 of the CPLR was also amended to allow Martin Schulman, “A liability insurer, which has a duty to indemni- that it was not one which would trigger the five injured parties to maintain Declaratory Judgment Esq. fy and often also to defend, requires timely notice of year extension. Claiming that the contract had actions against an insurer on the issue of late notice. lawsuit in order to be able to take an active, early role expired, petitioner demanded that respondent in the litigation process and in any settlement discussions and remove the machines from its premises, which Background to set adequate reserves. Late notice of lawsuit in the liability the respondent did. Respondent then served a Prior to the change, signed into law by Governor Patterson insurance context is so likely to be prejudicial to these con- demand for arbitration, alleging that the payment in July, 2008, if an insured failed to notify its insurer of an cerns as to justify the application of the no-prejudice rule. did extend the contract for the additional five accident in a timely manner, the insurer was able to disclaim Argo's delay was unreasonable as a matter of law and thus, its years, and that petitioner had breached the con- coverage whether or not it was prejudiced by the delay. failure to timely notify GNY vitiates the contract. GNY was tract by demanding removal of the machines. New York was one of only a few states that adhered to the not required to show prejudice before declining coverage for More that three months later, petitioner com- “no prejudice” rule and it was rigidly enforced by the Court of late notice of lawsuit.” menced the proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article Appeals. Delays in giving notice of an accident or an injury __________________________________Continued On Page 18 ________________________Continued On Page 14 photo by Robert Nieter INSIDE THIS ISSUE New Amendments to Insurance Law .....1 Lippman Begins As New Chief Judge......4 CPLR Update ...........................................1 Profile Of Judge Carmen Valasquez .......5 Criminal Law: Cases ...............................1 Culture Corner .........................................6 President’s Message ...............................3 Leonard Livote Helps Welcome Obama .9 Tribute To Hon. Thomas V. Polizzi .........3 Photo Corner: Foreclosure Seminar 10-11 Pretrial Advocacy Ethical Checklist.......4 Court Notes ...........................................12 2 THE QUEENS BAR BULLETIN – FEBRUARY 2009 THE DOCKET . Queens County Bar Association being the official notice of the meetings and programs listed below, which, unless otherwise noted, will be held at the Bar 90-35 148th Street, Jamaica, New York 11435 • Tel 718-291-4500 • Fax 718-657-1789 Association Building, 90-35 148th St., Jamaica, New York. More information and any changes will be made available to mem- bers via written notice and brochures. Questions? Please call (718) 291-4500. QUEENS COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PLEASE NOTE: The Queens Bar Association has been certified by the NYS Continuing Legal Education Board as an Accredited Legal Education Provider in the State of New York. SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2009 SPRING CLE Seminar & Event Listing February 2009 Dear Members: Monday, February 23 Stated Meeting - Small Firm & Solo Practitioners Thursday, February 26 Psychological Issues Underlying Lawsuits (rescheduled The Queens County Bar Association’s Scholarship fund was created to offer finan- from Nov 08) cial assistance to law students who are residents of Queens County or attend law March 2009 school in Queens County. Wednesday, March 4 Court Evaluator Training The recipients of the QCBA Scholarship are carefully chosen based on academic Thursday, March 12 How to Obtain Court Appointments achievement, community service and financial need. Wednesday, March 18 CPLR & Evidence Update Your tax deductible donation will help to support and recognize those law students Monday, March 23 Past Presidents & Golden Jubilarians Night who provide community service to the residents of Queens County.